<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1996 (10) TMI 110 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44486</link>
    <description>Excise valuation of ball bearings was confined to the goods as manufactured, so the value of accessories merely fitted before clearance could not be added to the assessable value. The assessee succeeded on that issue. Post-manufacturing charges for wooden crates and transit insurance had to be examined separately under the governing valuation principle, and the matter was remanded for fresh determination of the admissible portion, if any.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:13:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 110 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44486</link>
      <description>Excise valuation of ball bearings was confined to the goods as manufactured, so the value of accessories merely fitted before clearance could not be added to the assessable value. The assessee succeeded on that issue. Post-manufacturing charges for wooden crates and transit insurance had to be examined separately under the governing valuation principle, and the matter was remanded for fresh determination of the admissible portion, if any.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44486</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>